Reviews : Social Inquiry Reports Anthony Bottoms and Andrew Stelman Wildwood, 1988, 120pp, £4.95 pbk
| Author | Graham Nicholls |
| Date | 01 September 1989 |
| Published date | 01 September 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600306 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
116
The
long
delay
between
sub-
mission
of the
draftee
the
Home
~~’tce-
and
the
appearance
of
the
published
version
had
encouraged
claims
in
some
quarters
of
a
Home
Office
’cover-up’.
Certainly,
them
aim
differences
between
the
two
versions -
all
the
prisons
are
now
given
pseudonyms
(although
since
the
pseudonyms
each
contain
a
pun
or
other
verbal clue
readers
should
have
little
difficulty
in
identifying
them)
and
the
text
is
less
categoric,
less
willing
to
make
specific
recommenda-
tions.
However,
most
of
the
fears
of
censorship
seem
to
have
been
unwar-
ranted ;
indeed -
so
much
for
con-
spiracy
theory -
I
gather
that
the
responsibility
for
the
delay
can
really
be
laid
at
the
door
of
the
publisher
not
the
Prison
Department.
All
in
all,
this
is
ah
important
and
very
disturbing
book.
Black
prisoners,
we
learn,
were
not,
as
officers
were
prone
to
claim,
’screaming
racial
discrimination
at
every
opportunity’.
Unfortunately,
they
would
have
every
justification
were
they
to
do
so.
Stephen
Shaw
Director,
Prison
Reform
Trust
Social
Inquiry
Reports
Anthony
Bottoms
and
Andrew
Stelman
Wildwood,
1988,
120pp,
£4.95
pbk
In
this
accessible
and
clearly-written
short
book
Bottoms
and
Stelman
set
out
’to
provide
an
analytic
framework
which
will
be
of
help
to
writers
(of
SIRs)
in
their
daily
work.’
They
begin
with
a
brief
history
of
social
inquiry
report
practice
and
distil
a
number
of
concerns
which
they
typify
as
practice
issues
like
time
con-
straints,
use
of
language
and
the
routinisation
of
report-writing
and
more
fundamental
core
issues
around
the
notions
of
’credibility’
and
’realism’
and
the
nature
of
the
probation
of-
ficer’s
role
as
either
officer
of
the
court
or
social
worker
with
offenders.
They
then
move
on
to
discuss
approaches
to
social
inquiry
practice
and
here
they
nail
their
colours
firmly
to
the
social
work
mast.
.
Looking
fot~dly
on
the
Streatfeild
Report
~~~
document
of
immense
im-
portance ?
the
historical
development
of
the
English
~I~’)
they
support
the
Cation
ofthe
probation
officer’s
report
as
a
very
specific
and
partial
source
of
information
to
the
court,
written
by
trained
social
workers
and
formed
by
the
social
work
knowledge
and
ex-
perience
of
the
author
as
well
as
her
or
his
social
work
skills
and
values.
The
latter,
they
suggest,
provide
the
means,
in
Whan’s
phrase,
for
a
’practical
moral
engagement’
on
the
basis
of
a
respect
for
persons,
care
based
on
that
respect
and
a
hope
for
the
future
and
the
potential
for
survival
and
growth.
Using
these
principles,
they
then
go
on
to
attempt
a
framework
for
social
inquiry
practice
providing
information
to
courts
relevant
to
the
offending
of
the
defendant,
information
relevant
to
the
future
prospects
of
the
defendant
and,
finally,
information
about
’com-
munity
options’
for
the
court
in
sentencing.
In
the
first
of
these
they
suggest
that
’the
key
question
for
the
report-writer
is
why
and
how
did
this
particular
offender
with
his
particular
social
background
(including
offending
history)
get
into
this
particular
situation
and
then
offend?’
Thus,
they
suggest,
discussion
of
the
defendant’s
current
and
past
offending
becomes
the
cen-
tral
core
of
the
report
and
other
social
history
information
may
only
be
in-
cluded
if
it
is
relevant
to
this.
Bottoms
and
Stehnan’s
clear
iden-
tification
of
the
social
inquiry
report
as
a
social
work
document
is
a
welcome
affirmation
against
the
tide
of
current
moves
towards
a
correc-
tional
model
for
probation
practice.
It
allows
them
to
argue
eloquently
and
persuasively
against
custodial
recom-
mendations
and
the
provision
of
’alter-
natives
to
custody’
but
they
are
perhaps
somewhat
uncritical
in
their
support
of
’social
work
values’.
We
know
that
in
practice
such
notions
are
often
less
than
straightforward
and
some
groups
of
offenders
benefit
less
To continue reading
Request your trial